Does anyone know when they took down connectivity in Egypt did they also
bring down the MPLS networks global companies use?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Hayden Katzenellenbogen
Cc: NANOG list
Subjec
Martin Millnert wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
"The problem, however, is due to a coordi
I used to work on some of this gear. The transmitters do indeed go to 11.
If they want to talk, you won't.
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> > Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
> country's Internet..
>
> http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
>
> "The problem, however, is due to a coordination error rel
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:25 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why not
> ask them?
Bill indicated he "was there when it was written" in reference to Jon being an
author, and I was inquiring to whether he had any knowledge of Jon's intent
No, it's those Radar Sharks with Frickin' lasers on their heads:
http://pokerterms.com/images/sharks-with-lasers-2.jpg
-Mike
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> On 2/6/2011 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> > Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blockin
Here's a chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:16 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: My upstream ISP does not support IPv6
On
On 2/6/2011 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
> country's Internet..
>
> http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
>
> "The problem, however, is due to a coordination error related to wave
John,
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or
>> other
>> registries prior to the RIRs existance.
> Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing
> allocations maintained by the
In message <4d4e1c5d.20...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/5/2011 8:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > A IPv4 /16 supports 64000 potential customers. A IPv6 /32 supports
> > 64000 potential customers. Either you have changed the customer
> > estimates or changed the growth space allowances o
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data
>> contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient
>> and makes the internet substantially more usef
Hi,
Could an nLayer network engineer contact me offlist regarding a service
or core router at I'm guessing One Wilshire that is having serious
problems?
Thanks.
William
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence
>> all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review
>> during the development process.
>
> Thanks, John. I'm a
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
>> RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework.
>> Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN.
>
> yup.. i was ther
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote:
> You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence
> all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review
> during the development process.
Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board
"gateway
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data
> contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient
> and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine
> it would be under alternative scenarios.
On 2/5/11 9:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
> country's Internet..
>
> http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
Those repeaterless submarine optical systems are really impacted by
terres
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
"The problem, however, is due to a coordination error related to waves,"
> Nahhas told OTV, adding that an investigation
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 08:29:44PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
> >>> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the k
>
> > Back in the '70s, I always heard "survive hostile battlefield
> conditions" and never heard anyone talk about comms survival of a
> nuclear event, but I wasn't in any interesting conversations, such as
> in front of funding agencies...
>
> To survive an EMP, electronics needs some fancy cir
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
>>> it's presumptuous to presume the power
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> ...
> The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently
> reflect "community standards" in the broader sense, or inherently align with
> the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to
> operat
Derek J. Balling wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6 enab
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
>> OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely enable
>> IPv6 anyway.
>
> Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
> makes the various securit
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
> I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
> guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
> rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6 enabled OS, it
> was reall
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Fred Baker"
>
>> You mean, like drop a couple of trade towers and take out three class
>> five switches, causing communication outages throughout New England
>> and New Jersey, and affecting places as far a
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely
enable IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear
magically makes the various security threats -- including the current
topic
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
>> it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
>
> No one presumes it, and a lot of us ar
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely
enable IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
makes the various security threats -- including the current topic of
rogue RAs -- go away
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
>>> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
>>> the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure t
John R. Levine wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North Am
On 2/5/2011 9:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In IPv6, we should be looking to do 5 or 10 year allocations. We can
afford to be fairly speculative in
our allocations in order to preserve greater aggregation.
And even if networks were only getting an 8 bit slide, that's 256 trips
back to the RIR to
On 2/5/2011 8:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
A IPv4 /16 supports 64000 potential customers. A IPv6 /32 supports
64000 potential customers. Either you have changed the customer
estimates or changed the growth space allowances or were using NAT
or
You don't suddenly need 256 times the amount of
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> Still, that is a considerable number of bits we'll have left when the dust
>> settles and the RIR allocation rate drastically slows.
>
> Like it did for IPv4? ;)
>
> -Nathan
>
It long since would have if ISPs didn't have to come back annu
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
>> Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
>> your desired growth margins?
>>
> Growth rate has not
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan>, John Levine writes:
>>> and saying "by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
>>> contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
>>> stunned us with its sym
On 2/5/2011 8:06 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
year in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
count.)
http://twitter.com/unquietwiki/status/449593712050176 springs to mind --
it was even *last* year.
In message , "Derek J. Balli
ng" writes:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
> > guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
>
> Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of yours and
- Original Message -
> From: "Fred Baker"
> You mean, like drop a couple of trade towers and take out three class
> five switches, causing communication outages throughout New England
> and New Jersey, and affecting places as far away as Chicago?
3 class-5s?
I thought it was a 5E and a
In message , "John R. Levine" wr
ites:
> > I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
> > guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
> >
> > Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
> > it in writing.
>
> Sure. Bet y
> Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this year
> in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
> count.)
John -
I happen to know with absolute certainty that the above statement is false.
But I'd be happy to take your money! :-)
Nathan
In message <4d4df75e.1040...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
> > Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
> > your desired growth margins?
> >
>
> Still, that is a considerable number of bits we'll have left when the dust
> settles and the RIR allocation rate drastically slows.
Like it did for IPv4? ;)
-Nathan
On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
survive in the case of all out war and massive destruc
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> >decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the
> > policies
> >under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps?
>
>
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
> guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of yours and their time?
This is like telling the cashier at the h
On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
your desired growth margins?
Growth rate has nothing to do with it. ARIN doesn't allow for growth in
initial
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
> the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
> survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic
> nuclear strikes)
In message <20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan>, John Levine writes:
> >and saying "by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
> >contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
> >stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
> >sin n
In message <4d4d5ffc.6020...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/5/2011 6:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > So why the ~!#! are you insisting on comparing IPv4 allocations with IPv6
> > alocations.
> >
> Because that is where the comparison must be made, at the RIR allocation
> size/rate level.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Jack Bates wrote:
That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also
just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in
WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked.
Does ARIN accept SWIP requests for IPs within legacy space ass
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Paul Graydon"
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Friday, 4 February, 2011 8:39:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: External sanity checks
>> On 02/03/2011 08:04 AM, Philip Lavine wrote:
>>> To all,
>>>
>>> Does any one
Good question:
Depends on what kind of address space assignment - if you mean legacy IP space,
then no there is no case law.
Kremen v. ARIN (Northern District of CA) is the only case law out there, but it
is on point only as to 'current' IP space. In Kremen, the district court went
only as
Hi,
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:12:40 -0600
"Aaron Wendel" wrote:
> How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
>
>
Legacy space. The best example I can think of was Choopa's hijacking
of Erie Forge and Steel's legacy space. In this case, it was theft as
it was a legacy allocatio
On 2/5/2011 5:25 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other
party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability
to reclaim or remove the reallocation.
If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume
In article <0d7e01cbc58a$340347a0$9c09d6e0$@net> you write:
>How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Here in the US, until there is statutory or case law, the question of
whether the people with legacy IP space assignments own that space is
entirely a matter of opinion. I rea
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer
where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to
hear about them.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party?
Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to r
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:06 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
>> Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a
On 2/5/2011 5:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer
where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to
hear about them.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other
party? Contractual agreements of
On 2/5/2011 4:53 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
*Since ARIN policy at the current time requires specified transfers be
made through ARIN,
and the recipient of address has to meet a utilization criterion.
No ad-hoc transfers would seem to be allowed by current ARIN policies,
except non-permanent reassignm
>> Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular
>> network is not granted by any RIR.
As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments.
There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by
pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Ba
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
> ARIN allows legacy holders to update their registration information, in
> fact, we even allow such via ARIN Online. No agreement is required with
> ARIN; we provide this service as well as WHOIS and reverse DNS without charge.
> If you
On 2/5/2011 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is
not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers
on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to
choose which network numbers they rou
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the
> policies
>under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps?
Bill -
RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> ARIN's community certinly is dominate
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
> > it's presumptuous to presume
James -
ARIN allows legacy holders to update their registration information, in
fact, we even allow such via ARIN Online. No agreement is required with ARIN;
we provide this service as well as WHOIS and reverse DNS without charge.
If you no longer want to use your address space, you m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
> it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the s
John,
It seams that by stating "Note that ARIN can't allow transfers contrary to the
community-developed policy" that you intend to say that ARIN, based on your
current policies and processes, will not actively update whois information for
legacy block holders that either "sub-assign" or "Transf
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> ...
>> It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
>>
>> Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:18 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific.
>
> http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf
> but thats just me.
FYI - Also remember to consider the
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
> > operator.
>
> It's dominated by th
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> >as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
> >don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
> >no wonder RFC 205
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
> operator.
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear wh
>
>the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...
No reason to play coy... (ep.net)
> --bill
>
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
>> as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
>> don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
>> no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "bl
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
>don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
>no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to
>operational realit
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >> For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
> >> in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not
> >> providing
> >
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4d4ca1b1.5060...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> > On 2/4/2011 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > I used to work for CSIRO. Their /16's which were got back in the
> > > late 80's will now be /48's.
> >
> > Th
>and saying "by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
>contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
>stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
>sin no more! Thank you Mr. DeLong from making the blind see again!"
More likely "uh
On 2/5/2011 6:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So why the ~!#! are you insisting on comparing IPv4 allocations with IPv6
alocations.
Because that is where the comparison must be made, at the RIR allocation
size/rate level.
There are two sizes. Those that fit into a /32 and those that don't.
The la
> If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the
> contract and the contract says they are providing internet access,
> then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a
> termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to
> date.
> (Yes, I have successf
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> In article , Owen
> DeLong writes
>
> >What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
> >mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never knowing
> >that there were wrenches that there are new tools available in IPv6.
> >
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> In article <20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
> writes
>
> >> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
> >> renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
> >> once every five year
In message <4d4ca1b1.5060...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/4/2011 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > I used to work for CSIRO. Their /16's which were got back in the
> > late 80's will now be /48's.
>
> That's why I didn't try doing any adjustments of X is the new /32. The
> whole
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
>> in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not providing
>> connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to si
Hi,
> If you are using your block, why would you worry?
>
> If not are not using your block, why would you need it?
You may define "using"
Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
everyone is an ISP/Webhoster ... with public services.
--
Viele Grüße / Kind Regards / C
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article , david
> raistrick writes
>>> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
>>> renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
>>
>> But (what I keep being told) you should nev
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:54:42PM +, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> > My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
> > already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
> > [ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expe
In article , Owen
DeLong writes
What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never knowing
that there were wrenches that there are new tools available in IPv6.
That screws or nuts and bolts can usually be superi
In article <20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
the
In article ,
david raistrick writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have
to renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether
that's once
But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber! Get PI
space and insert magic here!
Part
Le 05/02/2011 08:59, Siggi Bjarnason a écrit :
> I've been using Site24x7 for some time now and am very pleased with them,
> plus their pricing is very reasonable.
i am very pleased by serverguard24.com services.
--
Cordialement,
Ghislain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signatur
On 2/5/2011 1:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not sure how I feel about a more adaptive version. Sounds like it would be
better
than the current state, but, I vastly prefer "I pay, you route. If I want
filtration, I'll
tell you."
I generally agree with you. However, I also believe that every network
I've been using Site24x7 for some time now and am very pleased with them,
plus their pricing is very reasonable.
Siggi Bjarnason
si...@bjarnason.us
"In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions and every
other man is entitled not to listen."
- G. Norman Collie
On Thu, Feb 3
96 matches
Mail list logo
